BNUMBER: B-279221; B-279221.2
DATE: May 19, 1998
TITLE: Ideal Electronic Security Company, B-279221; B-279221.2, May
19, 1998
**********************************************************************
DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective
Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release.
Matter of:Ideal Electronic Security Company
File: B-279221; B-279221.2
Date:May 19, 1998
Kenneth Martin, Esq., Martin & Rylander, for the protester.
Joseph P. Hornyak, Esq., and Drew W. Marrocco, Esq., Sonnenschein,
Nath & Rosenthal, for SCIENTECH, Inc., an intervenor.
Diane M. Canzano, Esq., Department of the Treasury, for the agency.
Linda C. Glass, Esq., and Paul I. Lieberman, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
1. Protest that contracting agency improperly failed to evaluate
proposals reasonably and in accordance with the solicitation's
evaluation criteria is denied where the record does not support the
allegations; a protester's mere disagreement with the agency's
conclusions does not render the evaluation unreasonable.
2. Allegation that agency misled protester to curtail price reduction
in its best and final offer (BAFO) is denied where record shows that
the protester was merely advised that its price was competitive and
its escalation rates appeared reasonable and within anticipated
increases; protester's determination as to what extent to lower its
BAFO price reflects its own business judgment.
DECISION
Ideal Electronic Security Company protests the award of a contract to
SCIENTECH, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. BEP-98-05(N),
issued by the Department of Treasury, Bureau of Engraving and Printing
(BEP) for the acquisition of the BEP security system maintenance,
installation, operation, and engineering support services. Ideal
challenges the agency's evaluation of Ideal's proposal and asserts
that the agency conducted misleading discussions which caused Ideal
not to lower its final price to the full extent that it could have.
We deny the protest.
The BEP security system consists of a Monitor Dynamics Inc. (MDI)
access control and intrusion detection security system (ACAMS),
American Dynamics Closed Circuit Television System (CCTV) and an
Imaging Technology Corporation (ITC) video badging system. The MDI
security system is an alarm monitor system which operates through a
central computerized alarm monitor and a series of peripheral alarm
devices. The CCTV system permits monitoring and recording through
various stages of production, transportation and storage. The ITC
system produces and maintains the integrity of BEP's selected access
control security badges and interfaces with the MDI system to allow
for the transfer of badge holder data to the MDI system where the
badge holder will then be specifically and separately programmed for
the required access rights.
The RFP, issued on October 27, 1997, contemplated the award of a
fixed-price contract with labor hour and requirement line items for
the operation and monitoring of the security system, including the
MDI, CCTV, ITC and fire management system (FMS). The RFP stated that
a minimum of 35 employees were required as security system operators
and required offerors to submit resumes for key personnel that clearly
demonstrated experience with security engineering design, installation
maintenance, testing, training, and systems operation. Offerors were
also required to provide minimum qualification statements for all
other proposed personnel who would be performing under the contract.
The RFP advised that award would be made on the basis of the proposal
determined to be most advantageous to the government, price and
technical factors considered.
The RFP provided for a two phase evaluation process. Under Phase I,
proposals were evaluated on the following three factors: (a)
experience of proposed personnel; (b) corporate experience; and (c)
past performance. In order to be included in the competitive range
for Phase I and proceed to Phase II, offerors had to receive a pass
rating for criteria (a) and (b). Under Phase II, offerors were
required to give an oral presentation and the proposals were evaluated
on two factors, management plan (62.5 points) and organizational
experience (37.5 points), each of which included several subfactors.
Proposals were received from four firms, all of which were included in
the competitive range on the basis of the following Phase I evaluation
results:
Offeror Technical Score Price
SCIENTECH Pass $15,610,344
Ideal Pass $16,130,956
A Pass $13,174,851
B Pass $14,235,432
By letters dated December 5, offerors were notified of their inclusion
in the competitive range and of the oral presentation dates. In its
letter, Ideal was advised that it needed to address the minimum
qualification statements for all proposed personnel. Among other
things, Ideal was asked to provide information on personnel experience
in maintenance and in operation of the MDI ACAMS, experience in the
installation and the maintenance of the CCTV system and corporate
experience of the subcontractor in the operation of the MDI ACAMS.
After the oral presentations, the proposals were reevaluated. The
results of the Phase II evaluation were as follows:
Offeror Technical Score Price
SCIENTECH 97.5/100 $15,610,344
Ideal 85.1/100 $16,130,956
A 77.0/100 $13,174,851
B[1] 17.5/100 $14,235,432
On December 22, further discussions were conducted with each offeror
in the competitive range for Phase II. The agency reports that since
all technical issues were resolved during oral presentations, no
technical issues were addressed at this time. The agency also reports
that during these discussions, offerors were provided the Department
of Labor projected wage rate increases to ensure that each offeror
would consider these projected increases in formulating its Best and
Final Offer (BAFO). By letter dated December 22, each competitive
range offeror was requested to submit its BAFO by January 5, 1998.
The rankings after receipt of BAFOs were as follows:
Offeror Technical Score BAFO Price
SCIENTECH 97.5 $14,812,550
Ideal 85.1 $15,596,912
A 77.0 $13,298,570
In using these evaluation results to make the best value
determination, the contracting officer states that because SCIENTECH's
proposal was higher technically rated than Ideal's and SCIENTECH
proposed a lower price, the proposal was viewed to be clearly superior
to Ideal's and the best value analysis was focused on a comparison of
the proposal of SCIENTECH and the lower-priced one submitted by
Offeror A. On January 29, award was made to SCIENTECH as representing
the best value to the government. On February 2, Ideal received a
debriefing. On February 9, Ideal filed this protest with our Office,
which it supplemented on February 12.
Ideal protests that the agency improperly evaluated its proposal
because the method of evaluation overemphasized the need for
site-specific experience with respect to the CCTV system and the ITC
video badging system, thus Ideal's proposal was improperly downgraded
based on an unstated evaluation requirement.
In reviewing protests concerning the evaluation of proposals, we will
examine the agency's evaluation to ensure that it had a reasonable
basis and was consistent with the evaluation criteria listed in the
RFP. Pemco Aeroplex Inc., B-239672.5, Apr. 12, 1991, 91-1 CPD para. 367
at 4. A protester's mere disagreement with the agency's evaluation is
not itself sufficient to establish that the agency acted unreasonably.
Correa Enters., Inc., B-241912, Mar. 5, 1991, 91-1 CPD para. 249 at 3.
Here, the record establishes that the evaluation was reasonable and
consistent with the RFP evaluation criteria.
Ideal's protest focuses on its belief that the BEP evaluators did not
properly credit Ideal for the work it performed as the subcontractor
responsible for installing the MDI system under a previous contract.
Ideal also argues that BEP improperly downgraded its proposal for a
lack of subcontractor experience. According to Ideal, the RFP did not
require offerors to propose a subcontractor plan, but rather required
offerors to demonstrate corporate experience of subcontractors only
when the offeror proposed subcontractor performance of major portions
of the specified work.
The record shows that the evaluators recognized that Ideal had
installed MDI equipment at BEP and accorded Ideal appropriate credit
for this effort. While Ideal demonstrated experience in the
installation of the MDI system, Ideal did not demonstrate experience
in the operation of the MDI system nor did it demonstrate experience
with the CCTV system or the ITC video badging system. In this regard,
section L-12 of the RFP stated that "BEP is specifically looking for
contractors experienced with engineering design, development,
procurement, installation, maintenance, testing, training, and systems
operation of electronic/computerized security systems and equipment,"
(bold and undeline font omitted) and provided for the evaluation of
offeror experience on the basis of 3 to 5 contracts that most closely
"match BEP's requirement for Security System Operation, Maintenance,
Installation, and Technical Support Services." Ideal's argument that
BEP improperly emphasized the importance of these other security
systems in its evaluation is contradicted by these provisions and by
the fact that the RFP scope of work specifically stated that the
performance of work required operation/monitoring of the BEP's
security systems which included the MDI, CCTV, ITC video badging and
the FMS systems, all of which were listed as integral parts of the BEP
security system. In this respect, offerors were required to provide
proposed staffing plans and a description of resources needed to
successfully operate and monitor BEP's total security system.
Accordingly, it was appropriate for the agency to evaluate Ideal's
experience with respect to the total security system, and Ideal's MDI
equipment installation did not, by itself, evidence the full range of
experience called for by the RFP.
Ideal also maintains that the agency improperly downgraded Ideal for a
lack of subcontractor experience with providing security system
operators when Ideal had made it clear to BEP it planned to perform
most, if not all, of the specified work with Ideal personnel. The
record shows that Ideal's proposal was downgraded in this respect
mainly because of weakness concerning the security system operators
requirement, with respect to which the agency concluded that Ideal
left unclear how and with what personnel Ideal would meet the operator
requirement. Additionally, based on the contents of Ideal's technical
proposal and its responses to questions posed during the oral
presentation, the evaluators concluded that Ideal planned to
subcontract the operator requirement to a company inexperienced in
providing security system operators. In its proposal, under
subcontractor management, Ideal named its proposed subcontractor and
specifically stated that the subcontractor provides personnel for
Ideal as a teaming partner/subcontractor. Moreover, under the scope
of services Ideal stated it would perform, providing security system
operators was not listed, and Ideal did not provide minimum
qualifications statements for its proposed security system operators.
In its letter to Ideal scheduling the oral presentation, BEP stated
that Ideal needed to address the minimum qualification statements for
all proposed personnel performing under the contract and provide
information concerning experience in maintenance and in operation of
the MDI, and the corporate experience of the subcontractor in the
operation of the MDI. During its oral presentation, Ideal was asked
about its subcontractor's specific experience in providing security
system operators and Ideal responded that its subcontractor has not
provided security operator personnel in the past and that Ideal would
train the security operators.
The offeror has the burden of submitting an adequately written
proposal, and an offeror's mere disagreement with the agency's
judgment concerning the adequacy of the proposal is not sufficient to
establish that the agency acted unreasonably. Caldwell Consulting
Assocs., B-242767, B-242767.2, June 5, 1991, 91-1 CPD para. 530
at 6. Here, the record demonstrates that the agency's evaluation of
Ideal's proposal was fair and consistent with the evaluation criteria.
Ideal was given appropriate credit for its familiarity with the MDI
system; however, Ideal did not have significant experience with the
other parts of BEP's security system and failed to provide information
showing how it would meet the system operators requirement. Moreover,
notwithstanding these shortcomings, Ideal's proposal received a score
of 85.1 out of a possible 100 points, including relatively high scores
in the experience category based primarily on its experience
installing the MDI system.[2]
Ideal also argues that it was misled by the agency during discussions
into lowering its price less that it otherwise would have in its BAFO.
Ideal contends that, during discussions, BEP informed Ideal that its
prices as proposed in its original offer appeared to fall within
anticipated increases, which suggested to Ideal that it need not lower
its price proposal. In this regard, the agency has submitted a
declaration from the contract specialist who negotiated with Ideal, in
which he states that he told Ideal that its price was competitive and
was determined to be fair and reasonable, but did not advise Ideal not
to lower its price. On the contrary, the contract specialist states
that he reminded Ideal that a best value determination would be
performed and recommended to Ideal that it try to be more competitive
with respect to its price. Ideal's representative states that he does
not recall the contract specialist's advice to try to be more
competitive, but does not assert that the contract specialist told
Ideal not to lower its price. Essentially, Ideal is merely arguing
that the contracting agency's statement that Ideal's offer was
reasonable and within the anticipated wage increases indicated that
Ideal need not lower its price. We do not view this statement as a
recommendation (much less a directive) that Ideal not lower its price;
the record shows that Ideal did in fact lower its price in its BAFO,
and the extent to which Ideal lowered its price was a reflection of
its own business judgment. See Crestmont Cleaning Serv. & Supply Co.,
Inc., et al.,
B-254486 et al., Dec. 22, 1993, 93-2 CPD para. 336 at 8. The record
simply does not substantiate Ideal's position that its BAFO pricing
resulted from misleading advice that had been provided by the agency.
The protest is denied.
Comptroller General
of the United States
1. This offeror's proposal was excluded from the Phase II competitive
range.
2. In its comments submitted in response to the agency report, Ideal
argues that if BEP found informational inadequacies regarding Ideal's
proposed personnel and subcontractor plan, BEP should have conducted
further discussions. As noted above, the contracting officer's
December 5, 1997 letter to Ideal advised that additional information
was needed concerning the qualifications of the proposed personnel
experience in maintenance and in operation of the MDI system and also
concerning the corporate experience of the subcontractor in operation
of the MDI. Additionally, during oral presentations, Ideal was again
asked about its subcontractor's experience with providing security
system operators. An agency is
not required to "spoon-feed" offerors. Research Analysis and
Maintenance, Inc.,
B-242836.4, Oct. 29, 1991, 91-2 CPD para. 387 at 6. In evaluating whether
there has been sufficient disclosure during discussions, the focus is
not on whether the agency described its concerns in such detail that
there could be no doubt as to their identification and nature, but
whether the agency imparted enough information to the offeror to
afford it a fair and reasonable opportunity in the context of the
procurement to respond to the areas of weakness in its proposal. See
Aydin Computer and Monitor Div., Aydin Corp., B-249539, Dec. 2, 1992,
93-1 CPD para. 135
at 11. While the agency appears to have satisfied its obligations
under this standard, even if discussions had resulted in higher
ratings under those factors concerning personnel qualifications and
utilization, Ideal would have not been in line for award. If Ideal
received the maximum possible points for these subfactors, the agency
points out that Ideal's total technical score would have increased by
11.7 points to 96.8, which would remain below the score of 97.5
received by SCIENTECH for its lower-priced proposal. In its comments,
Ideal does not dispute this rescoring of its proposal and does not
argue that had more precise discussions occurred it would have been
able to satisfy the agency's concerns in such a manner as to make its
proposal sufficiently superior to the awardee's lower-priced proposal
to warrant award. Because competitive prejudice is an essential
element of a viable protest, Lithos Restoration, Ltd., B-247003.2,
Apr. 22, 1992, 92-1 CPD para. 379 at 5, Ideal's allegation does not
provide a valid basis to sustain its protest.